Reddit refugee
Incase you didn’t know, Rwanda was for settled claims, not processing.
As in, they would be sent to Rwanda if they were successful in their asylum claim.
Processing asylum seekers in a country they are already in, like Albania, is significantly safer than forcing them to get in a dingy.
Now if we are taking people out of dingys in the channel, and taking them to Albania, then yes fuck that absolutely.
A full itemised breakdown is a different level of rigor than a “to the closest billion, what’s going on?” request made civil servants as part of an incoming government. Given the statements made by the OBR themselves the idea that 22bn is inaccurate or false is pure cope.
Also, the FT not actually linking to their FOI request means you cannot see exactly what they requested, and a high level of detail could well lead to other disclosure problems (eg if overspend occurs in front line military).
Good to see the FT continuing to absolutely destroy their credibility:
The response from the Treasury’s information rights unit said details would be published respecting agreed timelines “to allow the relevant officials time to complete the preparation of the information to ensure it is accurate and correct prior to publication”.
[…]
A spokesperson added the Treasury intends to provide more details of the overspending, either at the Budget or in separate spending releases.
Not exactly sure how this can be considered a refusal…hmmmmm.
Respectfully, I didn’t ignore the rest of what you said.
I agree that representatives need to explain to the electorate why they are best placed to elect them for what comes ahead.
But the key point is that we don’t actually know what comes ahead. They have a manifesto, etc, but there will always be unforeseen circumstances which arise.
In those moments in a representative democracy the representatives make the decisions. Your vote for them has allowed you to have your person at the table, but they don’t need to consult with the electorate again.
If they do, you’re moving towards direct democracy.
There are good arguments why governments should look to keep the electorate informed, explain actions, and justify decisions, but the popularity of a measure shouldn’t be the sole factor.
Simple fact, if an opinion is popular. Completely ignoring it is anti-democratic.
This is an incredibly simplistic definition which describes delegates, not representatives.
A delegate must do what they are instructed - think of them as your hands - whereas a representative is someone who makes decisions on your behalf - a second brain.
Delegates are extremely susceptible to tyranny of the majority, whereas representatives - in theory - seek to balance actions across all the people they represent, as well as their expertise and knowledge.
Populism is that thing your mum was on about where if your friends all jumped off a cliff, would you?
It might absolutely be the right decision, depending on the context, but if it isn’t then you shouldn’t do the wrong thing just because it’s popular.
There is a difference between being pro-austerity, and being pro means testing.
Do I agree with the bar being set at being in receipt of pension credit? Fuck no, that’s far too low given you’re talking about a scenario where pensioners have less than 10k/yr and would be spending over 10% of their money on heating.
But, pensioners with a full state pension, and a private / workplace pension on top, sitting in a big house they bought in the 80s to raise a family in, all of whom have since moved out, and is now worth several hundreds of thousands of pounds, really don’t need the extra cash.
So there should be a cut off, but not where it currently is. Ultimately, this shows the state pension is still too low if an extra payment is required so people don’t freeze. If the state pension was higher, to the point this payment wasn’t needed, then I think it would be a sensible place to put the limit, because pensioners with extra income (like private or workplace pensions) fundamentally shouldn’t need it, because the state pension should be the base line.
I’m fully expecting a level of wealth taxing to be announced in the budget - it really isn’t something you want to leak before hand because the ultra wealthy will move their money elsewhere, cos they’re parasites - but if Reeves doesn’t bring one in, then she and Starmer are going to have a very tough time.
And Graham fits the description very aptly.
How a trade unionist can claim authority based on 4% of the membership is beyond me. No wonder she’s so incredibly unpopular within the union.
This is like, through the looking glass levels of shit satire actually being real. Fucking clown.
Fwiw a 4 day week, and a 5 day week compressed in to 4 days, are different things.
The system is old cos you’ve done nothing but extract money for three decades, you fucking brass necked cunt.
What bullshit, Larry is immortal, how dare they question his glory.
A grown up conversation would not be using percentages to compare figures which are separated by a literal order of magnitude.
In 2023, boat crossings and asylum applications are approximately 68k, whilst net migration was 685k, literally 10x higher. It’s the 685k figure which covers those coming to the UK on visas to work or study, both of which require an existing job or uni place to be granted.
A grown up conversation would also not start with
Has the west turned decisively against immigration? If recent reports are anything to go by, the answer is a resounding “yes”.
Because if anything, the recent election results in the UK and France have actually been a resounding fuck you towards the culture warriors who are demonising minorities.
Lenders to Thames argue that forcing them to incur losses on their debts would also drive up the cost of borrowing for all UK water companies, and potentially other utilities such as gas and electricity.
Lol, get fucked.
National Grid PLC own the grid infrastructure, and are a private company cos Thatcher.
Oh no, if it isn’t the consequences of their actions!
Yeah, there is a difference, but that doesn’t mean it’s a binary.
The core issue with Truss was borrowing without a return. She would have been borrowing for operational expenses, which don’t generally speaking lead to higher growth.
Borrowing for capital expenditure / invest should lead to growth, but that’s why I said in my first comment about growth vs interest paid.
Strictly speaking I’m talking about both gilts and bonds, but for these purposes the issues are pretty much the same.
The cost of borrowing - ie the interest rate paid by government - goes up based on the Bank of England base rate, and/or inflation, depending on the loan. Some are inflation linked, some are base rate tracking, some are fixed rate, etc.
So for a simple example, if you are borrowing money at 5% interest (per year) and you’re investing it in to capital projects which grow the economy by 1% (per year), you are actually losing 4% per year, and need to find a way to cover that expenditure. You really don’t want to borrow more money for that, because it makes things worse, so you either need to raise taxes or cut expenditure elsewhere.
This is the real damage both Truss/Kwateng, but also Cameron/Osborne caused. Under Cameron, the UK’s rating was downgraded from AAA to AA and has never recovered. This also causes an increase in borrowing costs as private finance point to it as a reason of supposed risk, even though we’ve never failed to pay back our loans. These things combined had lead us to where we are.
Since about 2010, growth of the UK economy has been around 1 percent. But until Truss, the base rate was practically 0 percent, and inflation was under 2%, so we could have borrowed a lot to fund a lot of capital investment, if only the party in government wasn’t ideologically obsessed with actively damaging the economy through austerity.
But now, with both inflation and the base rate at levels not seen in decades, but growth still around 1 percent at best, and potentially turning negative, getting people (ie bond and gilt buyers) who at their core believe only in monetary policy to consider Keysian approaches to economic recovery, and to fund them, is a difficult thing, and they are easily spooked.
I want this money to be spent, it’s genuinely one of the only things I’m enthusiastic about with their policy platform, but honestlty, I think Starmer/Reeves are taking the boring and sensible approach here. They’ve said how much they want to spend, and have been straight forward in saying that they will need to borrow to fund it. It is reasonable to admit that the amount which can be borrowed depends on factors out of their current control (as opposition), and they will scale down if they are required to do so.
But that doesn’t stop me feeling like it’s a bit of a bait and switch.
It’s interesting that Labour hasn’t gone with: Despite the mess 14 years of Tory government has left us in the right thing to do is to invest in our future for the long term and seen how that polls.
So let’s think this though. It is a good attack line, and as we saw with Johnson and Truss the electorate are not opposed to spending, especially when it’s investment. So the problem isn’t polling.
The problem is how the bond market will respond.
Labour’s response to the bond market (almost) shitting itself to death due to Truss’ completely unfunded spend commitments (ie tax cuts) cannot be to make further unfunded commitments, especially on this scale.
If they did, with the polling lead they have an being odds on favourite to win the election, the market implodes, pensions are turbo fucked, interest rates grow even higher, and the Tories end up winning.
I don’t like this, I don’t want this to be the reality, but when reality is that Labour needs to borrow to make this investment, they are at the behest of the lenders, aka the bond market.
The hesitation is due to Truss fucking the bond market, and thus interest rates.
We currently have interest rates significantly higher than economic growth, and as such we can’t basically borrow money for free. Which is doubly infuriating because since 2010 we could have.
As such, the attack line of 28bn in potentially unfunded spend is a bad one as its the same attack the Tories have been throwing at Labour since 2008, that they fucked the economy (which is false).
So what Starmer is saying is the spend will only happen if it can be funded.
The problem is that he genuinely cannot know what will and won’t be fundable until we know the state of the economy once the election happens. If the bond market continues its recovery, then borrowing will be cheaper, and the ROI of growth vs interest is wider. An election in May would actually hurt Labour more, because there is less recovery time, and so higher borrowing costs.
nothing has actually collapsed
Respectfully, I think this betrays your privilege / position.
Things very much are collapsing, and it isn’t limited to the poor and destitute anymore.
A friend of mine was telling me recently how the foodbank they volunteer at has had an absolute explosion of demand and is now being used by people who previously would have been donating food. This is because they are spending every penny they can on their mortgage.
Granted, we are not in the middle of a great depression or anything like that, but things are very bad for a lot of people.
As I cover in my final paragraph.